Hi, Il 08/10/26 12:02, Jouni Äijälä ha scritto:
I agree, old bugs should not be closed just because they are old. At the same time we should avoid this kind of situation that we have thousands of over 10 years open bugs which most likely never be fixed.
Why not? What's the harm at keeping them open? I think this is the fundamental question that hasn't been answered.
Reason why we are not using "need more info" yet is that by doing this we would kind of ask people to retest every bug and this is not what we want.
*The Qt project* ought to retest them. The reporter has already done their job.
We will use "need more info" later on once we get closer to supported Qt versions. So by default closing the bugs now with "won't do" does not mean that they are not valid bugs.
Now we're arguing the semantics of the issue resolutions on Jira. What does "not in scope" mean? What does "won't do" mean?More importantly why hasn't this been discussed *before* acting, then the discussion summarized on the wiki, and the bugs updated with links to the wiki? We could've also had a session at QtCS.
We kind of accept quality debt and then who disagrees that can update the bugs with supported Qt version and they will remain open.
Who's who?The original reporter, who hasn't seen the bug acted upon in years, and now sees the bug being closed? Would they still care?
Someone else stumbling on the same report? As I wrote, I completely disagree that this someone else actually exists, because our bugs are no longer easy to find on web searches.
(This is the wrong thread to complain about the current state of the web, but it's still a fact -- I'm not necessarily pointing fingers against Jira Cloud here.)
Also the same for already closed bugs by reopening them.
Certainly not; it depends on the resolution. One thing is reopening a "needs more info" bug, by providing the missing info. One thing is reopening a bug that has been rejected as "invalid" (one needs to bring a positive proof that it's, in fact, a valid bug; that's more effort).
And yet another thing is a "Won't do", which is effectively trying to override a maintainer decision (or the project's decision), for which the bar is even higher.
These particular bugs have now better chance to get fixed.
Why?
Also we are not deleting the bugs from database. They can still be found by the label "not in maintenance scope" even if they are closed.
Nobody cares about the label. My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | [email protected] | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - Trusted Software Excellence
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
